Its Getting Closer...

[scattered_grass]

You all are worrying about absolutely nothing. I actually took the time to look through the "final recommendations of the task force" and there is one simple idea that the whole thing conveys--they want to create a regional management scheme rather than have one detached commission making decisions about areas they have no direct experience with. it actually sets up processes for providing quality, accurate, up to date information to these hypothetical regional boards that will make educated decisions on how to manage that particular body. this actually could be a good thing and people can ***** and moan about it all they want to, but lets face it theres a lot wrong with a lot of bodies of water that need to be fixed, and this may be the mechanism necessary to do so.

THEY AREN'T GOING TO MAKE US STOP FISHING!! that idea is just f'in ludicrous. you old guys crack me up with how you think the government is out to take your tackle and boat from you and put a locked gate in front of every boat ramp. CHILLL!!!

can you name any gov't run programs or committees that are efficient, objective and dynamic to change? I'm drawing a blank here

[dstriper]

I just made it through this pile of dribble. It's more like a warning.
They are putting together a task force supported by new science
(tree hugging vegetarians) to tell us what we can and can't do.
More restrictions to come. I am up in the air about CMSP.
I'm not sure if designated areas for com. and rec. fishing would be good.
I suppose it would depend on where the boundary lines were drawn.
That would be an ugly battle.

[Surfbass]

can you name any gov't run programs or committees that are efficient, objective and dynamic to change? I'm drawing a blank here

I may need to rephrase what I said to clarify. What I was getting at is that their hearts I truly believe are in the right place and they are attempting to enact a plan to protect or at least sustain our resources. they are not out to persecute fishermen by any means.

with that said, in the past these efforts have not been successful because of the lack of influence from the people who have direct contact with the resources (i.e. US!). this policy sets up a structure for taking in that information and allowing it to impact the decision making process. read it! it actually states in there that they will use all means of communication including online resources such as blogs and message boards (hello...this site).

i don't think that its nearly as bad as everyone's initial reaction makes it to be. read it.

[scattered_grass]

I may need to rephrase what I said to clarify. What I was getting at is that their hearts I truly believe are in the right place and they are attempting to enact a plan to protect or at least sustain our resources. they are not out to persecute fishermen by any means.

with that said, in the past these efforts have not been successful because of the lack of influence from the people who have direct contact with the resources (i.e. US!). this policy sets up a structure for taking in that information and allowing it to impact the decision making process. read it! it actually states in there that they will use all means of communication including online resources such as blogs and message boards (hello...this site).

i don't think that its nearly as bad as everyone's initial reaction makes it to be. read it.

hope you're right Surfbass.

It just worries me when you have people(liberals) making laws that like to give more rights to animals than people. Look at what is happening to places like Hatteras and the whole beach driving thing. Closing down entire sections of beach because a bird(that's not even endangered) may like to nest there

[dstriper]

I may need to rephrase what I said to clarify. What I was getting at is that their hearts I truly believe are in the right place and they are attempting to enact a plan to protect or at least sustain our resources. they are not out to persecute fishermen by any means.

with that said, in the past these efforts have not been successful because of the lack of influence from the people who have direct contact with the resources (i.e. US!). this policy sets up a structure for taking in that information and allowing it to impact the decision making process. read it! it actually states in there that they will use all means of communication including online resources such as blogs and message boards (hello...this site).

i don't think that its nearly as bad as everyone's initial reaction makes it to be. read it.

But, it means we need to get involved now. If we don't
we'll definitely get screwed. We need state reps. that are
competent and up to speed with the issue. Conservation
is good but, some of the radical environmentalist take it
to far and they are the ones being heard.

[Deep C]

In the two hundred year plus history of the US. NEVER have they done the right thing when "dividing" up any thing. I can not for the life of me think of a single instance where more government involvement has had a positive outcome...
For those that believe that this is a good thing, I strongly disagree. Been to an Indian reservation lately? Unless they have a casino churnin cash for them they are a pretty bleak site. What I see in the crystal ball is a division of water access that is going to permit limited fishing if any in barren wastelands... If they go forward as I see it we don't get the benefiit of no taxes or popping up a casino. We get empty water...